 |
| Photo by Jennifer Ciroli |
While I was looking up some school policies, I stumbled upon this policy, Policy ECE TRAFFIC AND PARKING REGULATIONS. I advise parents to read this, especially those who use Hoover for football practice.
The speed limit for all vehicles on all school property, including parking lots, streets, roadways and play areas, is 15 miles per hour. No vehicles (other than District authorized vehicles) are permitted on tracks, ball fields, lawns or District property other than roadways and parking areas.
Just last week, a car was parked on the field. The person who observed this found it ironic since the sports groups complain about the condition of our fields.
Another point of interest is:
Student vehicles parked on District property are subject to search by the District and/or law enforcement authorities at any time for any reason, with or without notice. General and random searches (including canine sniff searches) are authorized. Students should have no expectation of privacy as to vehicles on District property. Parking is a privilege, not a right, and student parking permits will be issued only where students and/or parents consent to such searches. Refusal to cooperate in such searches may result in loss of parking privileges as well as disciplinary action.
This raises some questions in my mind. Are student vehicles subject to search by the District and/or law enforcement authorities at the Mt. Lebanon Lutheran Church or municipal parking, such as Dixon? Now that the students have to pay for parking, is it still a privilege? We still are not sure about the District's right to enforce anything on municipal parking lots, are we? Are they allowed to charge for student parking on municipal lots?
I recommend that the Policy Committee review Policy ECE after they cook the books, I mean, review the policies concerning "Purchasing Authority" and "Construction Contracts, Bidding and Awards."
I seriously doubt that any school board directors have given the amount of thought to the issues that you presented here, Elaine. The "elected volunteers" of this community continue to let us down, bleed our pockets and smile for the cameos. The system is truly broken because there is no accountability for them. We are just supposed to accept the horrible mismanagement because they are "volunteers".
ReplyDeleteWhat a shame!
Facists.
ReplyDeleteI'm hoping it's the newly renovated superintendents office. Perfect for those 4 excruciatingly long summer work days filled with observing the athletic wing progress.
ReplyDeleteI see that someone was using my idea for expanding the use of our fields.
ReplyDeleteSo it's the school district's contention that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply? Hahaha, are they kidding?? First off, not one of those idiots is qualified to determine what would require a search of a vehicle. Second, federal law still trumps Posti. Third, I guess if they truly want to break the law, the policy applies to teachers since parking on public property IS a privilege not a right.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is wrong with our school board?? And what kind of attorney gives a client advice that bad?
They can search students cars for any reason, but not faculty or staff at all on district property ?
ReplyDeleteWhat type of facist progressive BS is this ?
Because the teachers union would be all over them in a flash. The students are an easy mark.
ReplyDelete"AMENDMENT IV
ReplyDeleteThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So what is the message the school district is sending?
Hey kids, we think you're all guilty and therefore probable cause. But our administrator's, teachers and staff, no way. They could never been involved in anything illicit or illegal. No drugs, no alcohol, no guns. Unheard of!
The Department of Education has the following information regarding searches of students and students' property on school property:
ReplyDelete"The Fourth Amendment prohibits all unreasonable searches and seizures by State officers. Reasonableness is determined by balancing the governmental interest behind the search against the privacy intrusion of the search. The Supreme Court has held that students have a legitimate expectation of privacy in their persons and accompanying possessions. However, the Court also has held that schools have a substantial interest in maintaining security and order in the classroom and on school grounds. The Court has determined that this interest justifies a more flexible standard of reasonableness for searches of students that are conducted by school officials as opposed to law enforcement officers. Thus, the Court has held that school officials, unlike the police, do not need to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a search. Nor do they need probable cause to believe that a violation of the law has occurred." That takes care of the question of car searches on school property. The question now is whether a contract with the Lutheran Church to use their parking lot as a temporary school lot is covered under the aforementioned ruling by the Supreme Court, given that the church's lot is not District property. And a more gray area is whether the Municipality's lots fall under this ruling if a student parks his or her car there during school hours.
As to whether the District can charge a kid $50 per year to park in a Municipal lot that is free of charge to all other users sounds like a lawsuit waiting to be filed.
There is another "parking issue" that I have not seen addressed: Given that the District is renting the parking lot of the Lutheran Church for school purposes, does the improvement of that lot at the end of the contract period constitute a "contribution" to the Church if the improvement is over and above a "repair" of the facilities to the state in which they were found?; and if so does that not breech the so-called separation of church and state? After all, if a kid can get bounced for thanking Jesus that he passed a math test, why would the District not be held to the same standard when it helps a Lutheran Church by improving their facilities?
Every school in Alleg. County has the same policy about student cars. It must be legal, or it would have been challenged already. I don't like it either.
ReplyDeleteThis is from an ACLU site http://www.acluutah.org/SKYR4.html
The Fourth Amendment allows people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Fourth Amendment’s search and seizure restrictions apply in public schools, but, the Courts give school officials and police more leeway to conduct searches in school.65 Courts balance a student’s privacy rights against the school’s interest in safety and student discipline.66 This means that students often have less protection against what they might perceive as unreasonable searches and seizures at school, than in other places.
In most circumstances, a search by police requires a search warrant, which is advance written permission from a judge that the police have reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime has been committed. Police then must base their search on probable cause
Let's start wanding all attendees at School Board meetings. It's school property where only on-duty public safety personnel are permitted to be armed.
ReplyDeleteWho would object? Only criminals have something to hide.
5:21 PM Mr. Gideon. What would you think of the Mt. Lebanon police conducting random searches of student autos on district property without probable cause, and not doing the same for staff and faculty ? And the same with lockers ? And the same with back packs ?
ReplyDelete12:06 AM, I wish you signed your name since you were addressing your questions to Richard Gideon.
ReplyDeleteI understand that locker searches were announced several days in advance, giving the students a heads up. I never heard of any kid busted. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Elaine
Whatever happened to the concept of resumption of innocence? And is that concept tossed out only for students?
ReplyDeleteIs the district educating our students that all the principles that this nation was founded on go out the window (taped I presume) when we decided they do.
Wiki writes this on presumed innocence: "Modern practices aimed at curing social ills may run against presumption of innocence. Some[which?] civil rights activists feel that pre-employment drug testing, while legal, violates this principle, as potential employees are presumed to be users of illegal drugs, and must prove themselves innocent through the test."
So the district is telling students that at some point we may decide that some illicit activity is occurring in the district parking. We don't know what, by whom, or where, but it's OK - we have the right ignore search and seizure laws and look for it until we find something!
Great civics lesson!
Now, if the district had a suspicion that a specific individual - student or staff were say engaging in distribution of narcotics, I could see a search of that suspect(s) stuff on school grounds. But to do a random search of everyone, sorry no.
ReplyDeleteScanners to get into the building to weed out guns, knives, etc., reluctantly yeah I can see that. If applied to everyone. That's a price we all pay post-911 and Columbine.
Elaine:
ReplyDeleteThanks for expressing your comments about addressing questions to me on this Blog. As you know, I do not engage anonymous posters; although I may sometimes run with a subject they adduce.
My post of 2 September at 5:21pm was one of established facts, and not an endorsement of the practice. I would advise anyone who wonders about my opinion of searches without probable cause to refer to the Reason Foundation's position on the subject.
7:53 AM, according to the policy, yes, but there is no more student parking on school grounds. The SD is charging $50 a car to park at Dixon. Even the Muni doesn't charge anyone to use Dixon field.
ReplyDeleteElaine
First, most court cases side with schools on this. Sorry. The scary thing ia, a school administrator could search a locker or backpack based on nothing more than a rumor.
ReplyDeleteSecond, please stop quoting wiki as some actual authoritative source. It's not. Maybe I'll start quoting Fred's Classic Car blog when referring to traffic laws.
All that said, if my kid were falsely accused, I'd sue the district silly.
Look at the total picture. The SD is charging 200 students a parking fee of $50. It is considered to be a revenue source. However, 173 of those students are paying for Jan Klein's increase. The SD is charging students to park OFFSITE. As written in the agreement with the Lutheran Church -Timmy's church, we will be repaving the church lot at the end of the agreement. The SD is charging for student parking on Muni property, as well as for anyone using Dixon. In the same breath, the Policy Committee will be reviewing the purchasing authority policy. There is no reason to charge our kids parking. If student parking fees are truly necessary, we wouldn't be giving 6.9% increases, nor would we be rewriting purchasing authority policies. The SB directors are crooks.
ReplyDeleteElaine
10:37 you are are course right on wiki. It's not always the best or most reliable resource. How about a legal dictionary?
ReplyDelete"The probable cause standard is more important in Criminal Law than it is in Civil Law because it is used in criminal law as a basis for searching and arresting persons and depriving them of their liberty. Civil cases can deprive a person of property, but they cannot deprive a person of liberty. In civil court a plaintiff must possess probable cause to levy a claim against a defendant. If the plaintiff does not have probable cause for the claim, she may later face a Malicious Prosecution suit.
In the criminal arena probable cause is important in two respects. First, police must possess probable cause before they may search a person or a person's property, and they must possess it before they may arrest a person. Second, in most criminal cases the court must find that probable cause exists to believe that the defendant committed the crime before the defendant may be prosecuted.
There are some exceptions to these general rules. Police may briefly detain and conduct a limited search of a person in a public place if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief that is less than probable cause. A police officer possesses reasonable suspicion if he has enough knowledge to lead a reasonably cautious person to believe that criminal activity is occurring and that the individual played some part in it. In practice this requirement means that an officer need not possess the measure of knowledge that constitutes probable cause to Stop and Frisk a person in a public place. In any case, an officer may not arrest a person until the officer possesses probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime.
The requirement of probable cause for a Search and Seizure can be found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The requirement of probable cause works in tandem with the warrant requirement. A warrant is a document that allows police to search a person, search a person's property, or arrest a person. A judicial magistrate or judge must approve and sign a warrant before officers may act on it. To obtain a search or arrest warrant, officers must present to the magistrate or judge enough facts to constitute probable cause. A warrant is not required for all searches and all arrests. Courts have carved out exceptions that allow police to search and arrest persons without a warrant when obtaining a warrant would be impractical.
The precise amount of evidence that constitutes probable cause depends on the circumstances in the case. To illustrate, assume that a police officer has stopped a motor vehicle driver for a traffic violation. In the absence of any other facts indicating criminal activity by the driver, it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the officer conducted a full-blown search of the driver and the vehicle. The mere commission of a traffic violation is not, in and of itself, a fact that supports probable cause to believe that the driver has committed a crime. However, if the officer notices that the driver's eyes are bloodshot or that the driver smells of alcohol, the officer may detain and question the defendant, search him, and place him under arrest. Most courts hold that a driver's commission of a traffic violation combined with the appearance that the driver has used drugs or alcohol constitute sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable person to believe that the person is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol."
So once again, the school district can stomp on students rights to privacy whenever they please using a blanket search of every student vehicle. But, I wonder what would happen during one of these random searches the police dog hits on a staffers vehicle for drugs or weapons. Could they arrest and prosecute that teacher? Or would the evidence be thrown out because they didn't have probable cause to conduct the search?
I'm finished on this topic.
Is this really a legal issue? Besides, what happens if something is found? Would there be a trial or would the case be continued for four years?
ReplyDeleteI am glad you are finished on this topic, 11:43 AM. The SD has no standing when it comes to Dixon.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Once again, Elaine, notnsire I'd call the board crooks. Deceptive, yes. Unaccountable, most defining. Idiots, probably.
ReplyDeleteI've posted it before isn't it incredible how the the board is always "on schedule and on budget." how they have plenty of money for salary increases while at the same time they've hired PK to find sugar daddies and feel a need to charge students for parking while making no sacrifices in the administration compensation!
That's really easy to do President Posti when you conveniently disregard the promises you made.
What ever happened to the under $95 million promise? Then there was the closer to $100 million, than $113 million dollar promise. Today, it's "on scheduled, on budget." we see how long that last , right Jo?
If they have no standing then it's a non-issue. I'd be curious to see how our local elected officials feel about including Murphy and Smith.
ReplyDeleteWhere do you think that Matt Smith is headed? Haven't you noticed that challengers to the machine like Smith and Miller have a tendency to be exported on a rocket ship on to better political opportunities? Maybe the machine helps them along?
ReplyDeleteWhen you think about it, it's a clever way to subltly eliminate your competition!
They're not going anywhere unless they start acting like adults and giving voters an idea of where they stand.
ReplyDeleteD Raja... who?
ReplyDeleteMatt Smith...who? The invisible man.
ReplyDeleteHow did we get on the topic of Raja and Smith? Can we get back on topic?
ReplyDeleteElaine
Ok, we can get back on topic. But first, I just want to say that Raja worries me. In fact he scares the hell out of me!
ReplyDeleteBack to the topic - - - the death of the fourth amendment and the rise of fascism in the Mt Lebanon SD!
Students, study history.
ReplyDeleteHere in the bubble, no one pays attention to Joint Maintenance Agreements or parking fines.
In fact if you don't all buy the required permits, next year the board might drop the permit fee to $30.
Hey it worked for the YSA!